And This Is Surprising?

"Some participants noted that if economic growth remained too slow to make satisfactory progress toward reducing the unemployment rate and if inflation returned to relatively low levels after the effects of recent transitory shocks dissipated, it would be appropriate to provide additional monetary policy accommodation....A few members noted that, depending on how economic conditions evolve, the Committee might have to consider providing additional monetary policy stimulus, especially if economic growth remained too slow to meaningfully reduce the unemployment rate in the medium run."

From TF Metals Report:

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2011

Points For Friday
A couple of things before we get to the charts.

Just to address this "ending of QE" issue again. By some estimates, the U.S. Federal Reserve and their primary dealers (the PDs are the agents from which they buy back recently issued bonds via POMO) make up as much as 70% of the bidders in the overall treasury market. If they were to now exit this market, even in part, interest rates will rise dramatically as prices of bonds will fall due to lack of demand. The latest $600B QE/POMO schedule lasted 6 months. What was the U.S. federal deficit over those same six months? A little more than $600B. Even Stevie freaking Wonder can see the direct connection.
If the Fed halts QE:
1) Rates skyrocket
2) U.S. economic activity grinds to a halt
3) Tax revenues plummet
4) Even more deficit spending is then required
5) Rates go even higher
6) Interest on national debt component becomes an even larger % of federal budget
7) Even more deficit spending is required
8) Rates go higher still
9) Tax revenues fall further
10) The Great Keynesian Ponzi finally ends
DO NOT believe this silly notion that QE is about economic growth. QE is about funding the deficits of the U.S. government. Every other effect is ancillary. The only thing that would allow the Fed to end QE would be a dramatic reduction in the annual federal deficit. This would lead to a deficit spending level that the "market" in treasuries could absorb. Until then, the presses will run. Period.

Again, the intraday high of the August11 contract was 1577.70 on 5/2/11. A close above there would be extraordinarily bullish. This afternoon's high was 1574.30. Tomorrow will be quite interesting. TF

Well, only a little. I still think it's going to be Jackson Hole again where they officially announce a new program. It's a tad early to announce but the economic indicators are really starting to roll over and they don't want to let things snowball when they could act. In their minds taking action would be helping solve the problem before it turns into a nightmare. The main catch however is that oil is going to go up again with any additional QE. Perhaps that's why they released the strategic reserves, in order to hopefully lower prices enough to give clearance for a new program. The Fed being a private entity but very politically motivated, they don't want oil prices going to the moon yet at the same time they don't want all those nasty things to happen that Turd outlined above. So on the one hand you have higher prices and on the other you have no jobs. Which is a more pressing matter for those interested in getting reelected? If you're BB, you want to make the President look good no matter what. If you're the President, you want robust economic growth and a solid job market. People get annoyed when they have to pay $4 for a gallon of gasoline, but they get downright ugly when they have no job.

The Treasury buying will continue, so much is certain. What I really don't get is why some people now expect QE to be necessary for the PMs to move forward? Sorry but they have been moving up consistently for more than five years before QE1 was even announced. Even if all QE were to stop today, which we know is virtually impossible for the reasons stated above, we'd still have the effects of zero % interest rates and we'd still be very much in a precious metals bull market. Even if Benny were to move interest rates up to 10% tomorrow (which would btw totally and utterly crash what's left of the economy), we'd still be in a PM bull market, because the inflation we've created over the last couple of years will yet have to show itself the next couple of years, and the best investment in such an environment would still be precious metals.

Nice thought but coming up on election season there's no way the Republicans are going to go down as the ones who shut down the government or forced a default. That's ammo in the pocket of the Democrats.

This is exactly why the whole "Ds bad Rs good" OR "Rs bad Ds good" is such a bullshit waste of time. BOTH parties have driven this country into the ground. NOTHING will change until/unless they are broken.

Some participants noted that if economic growth remained too slow to make satisfactory progress toward reducing the unemployment rate and if inflation returned to relatively low levels after the effects of recent transitory shocks dissipated, it would be appropriate to provide additional monetary policy accommodation....

Hmmm, let's see, HORRIBLE unemployment figures? CHECK. Orchestrated commodity takedown to validate the "inflation is transitory" meme? CHECK. Debt ceiling to be raised by August 2nd? Soon to be CHECK. Absence of any foreign investors in bond auctions to raise cash to fund government after debt ceiling raise? CHECK. Fed to resume taking down the majority of our treasury auctions, ie., MONETIZING THE DEBT, ie., PRINTING MONEY INTO OBLIVION? Soon to be another CHECK. This was never in question. Period. QEIII in whatever name comes, and it comes within a few weeks. Anyone not buying metals here, right now, is crazy. Once they make the official announcement new highs will come rapidly. Once the China exchange opens even bigger highs come off of the new demand as well as the need for the exchange to procure metals. As price climbs, it brings more demand, more awareness, as more become aware of the fate of fiat, and the ponzi economy gets further exposed, a mad rush will begin to convert to hard assets, particularly metals. As this demand comes in wave after wave, true price discovery as a result of all of the above overwhelms the paper games being played, supply disappears, shorts must cover or be destroyed, creating a bottleneck with everyone trying to get their hands on the same small pools of available metals, until, well, until there isn't any to be had. What happens to fix this problem? As the saying goes, everyone has a price, and the price will have to keep going higher until someone decides to accept a bid and fork over their holdings. At what price would someone let go when the whole system goes belly up, that's always the big question. I would say that in that scenario look at what gold would need to trade at to back the currency. I've read many opinions, from $8000 an ounce, to as much as $36,000 an ounce depending on how you choose to break down the money supply. Even at the low end of the spectrum at $8000 gold, and with the manipulation having been long overrun and the short leverage problem having been eradicated do to the reasons listed above, would anyone release any of their silver holdings for less than the historic ratio of 15 to1? No, they wouldn't, and that would put silver around the $533 an ounce range. Anyone who doubts that we are headed back to a "sound money" gold, and perhaps silver, backed currency, please provide me with an explanation to your solution alternative, because I don't see it.

I've often wondered this: unless you are part of the EE, trying to protect what remains of the fiat status quo, why would you be short gold or silver? Are there any cogent arguments out there for the short side? I certainly haven't seen them, but I'd like to be aware of them if they do exist.

throw in the once every 3,500 year brown dwarf star skidding through the solar system, a polar shift reversal, and a few other minor man made factors and you have the makings of a very interesting time

was just on RTHK 3 radio here. He's a great investment advisor who has been pushing precious metals/ QE will never end forever (probably a Turd Reader). He was pointing out the huge range of price increases in Hong Kong despite the official low inflation rate. Once again recommending more precious metals/energy etc and stated that his firm has a lot invested in PMs. Very concerned about the contagion from Italy. He and the mainstream radio guy openly called for the ending of a central banks worldwide. Puru stated that if the governments are going to print money in any case as they have no choice then if they print their own at least they will not be creating any more debt. Interesting to hear such comments on mainstream radio.

Lots of smart people on this board and would like a few opinions regarding my company 401k retirement plan. A few weeks ago, I moved everything out of equities (mix of large cap, small cap and int'l funds) and into the money market plan. I was uneasy about the debt ceiling and QE2 ending.

Since it looks like QE3 will happen, does it make sense, at least in the short term, to move my funds back into a mix of stocks? I hate asking for investment opinions (been there, done that, learned my lesson) but what's the general thoughts regarding the short term movement of equities based on the likelihood of the Fed pumping more $$$ into the economy?

“Additionally, short sales of SLV should be illegal and not allowed. As noted above, each share of the SLV is required by prospectus to be backed by an ounce of physical silver. When a short seller borrows shares and sells them to a new buyer, the short seller has created two beneficial owners of the same shares. Both longs cannot take delivery of the same silver...”

Let’s say there are 5 SLV shares outstanding. And there are five shareholders holding a share each. Let’s call them A, B, C, D and E.

A speculator (X) wants to bet on a decline in silver price, and decides to do so by short selling a share, with the hope of buying it back at a lower price and profiting from the downward move during the time between selling and buying.

First, and most important, X must “borrow” a share. Let’s say that shareholder A is willing to “lend” its share. The contract governing this transaction between X and A is a Global Master Securities Lending Agreement, as published by the International Securities Lending Association (https://www.isla.co.uk/).

The vital part of the contract, and the cause of all the confusion, is section 4.2. What that says is that A is transferring the title to the share to X. A is not lending the share to X. A is transferring the share to X. Section 8.1 says that at any time A can require X to return the share (actually, return any share, because each share is the same as another – they are fungible.) See more on this at the bottom of this post.

The short seller has not created two beneficial owners of the same share. There are still only 5 shares. Each share is still backed by silver, in accordance with SLV’s prospectus. (Whether SLV actually owns all the silver is a separate topic.)

Let me explain in steps.

Initially, there were five shares and five shareholders.

Shareholder A transferred his share to new shareholder X. There are still 5 shares. There are still five shareholders (X has replaced A as a shareholder).

Shareholder X sells the share he got from shareholder A. New shareholder Y buys that share. There are still 5 shares. There are still five shareholders (Y has replaced X as a shareholder). No new shares have been created.

So, what about old shareholder A, and short seller X? They are still subject to the contract. That says that A can at any time require X to deliver a share to him. Or, X can change his mind about his strategy and cover his short by delivering a share of SLV to A. Until either of those two things happens, X will have an unrealized gain if the price of SLV’s shares has decreased since he sold the share he got from A. Or, X will have an unrealized loss if the price of SLV’s shares has risen since he sold the share he got from A.

So, instead of the short seller X having created two beneficial owners of the same shares, what he has done is create an obligation on himself to buy a share of SLV when A requires him to do so, or when he chooses to do so. At the time that X decides, or is required, to buy a share of SLV, he will have to buy it from one of the existing 5 shares of SLV that exist. He might have to bid a high price to entice one of the holders of SLV shares to sell one to him.

When a security is loaned, the title of the security transfers to the borrower. This means that the borrower has the advantages of holding the security, just as though they owned it. Specifically, the borrower will receive all coupon and/or dividend payments, and any other rights such as voting rights. In most cases, these dividends or coupons must be passed back to the lender in the form of what is referred to as a "manufactured dividend"."

Please do let me know if you disagree with any of my analysis.

TED TO ME (July 11):

Thanks for your note. Yes, I do disagree, but most respectfully. Shareholder A has lent his shares (often times unknowingly), but not sold them. Effectively, this has created more shares than have been authorized and both shareholders A and Y own shares. As a result, there are brokerage statements reflecting 6 shares being owned. While this claim can be made about all share short sales. in the case of SLV and other hard metal ETFs (like GLD), it takes on unique significance. That's because all shareholders are led to believe (by the prospectus) that one oz of metal backs each share. That's clearly not the case with shorted shares. The current 11.6% of shares with no metal backing is extraordinarily large and alarming .I believe this is fraud and manipulation because the shares being shorted were sold because the actual metal couldn't be acquired at current prices and this was an intentional end run around the terms of the propectus ME TO TED (July 12): Ted,
thanks for your response. I'm glad you see the distinction between "effectively" creating a new share and actually creating a new share. However, I'm surprised that you still state that both A and Y own shares, when they clearly, legally, do not. Some lenders of shares (mainly retail holders, I guess) would be unaware that their shares are being transferred to someone who wants to sell them short. But institutional shareholders (who control many more shares in aggregate) are very much aware of this, and they usually like to do it for the fees that the borrower/shorter pay them. The brokerage statements that show that A still owns its shares would I'm sure contain a footnote or a reference to the customer's agreement with its broker, in which the possibility of the shares having been transferred to a short seller would be explained. In any event, it is of little consequence to shareholder A, as he will still be able to sell his shares when he wants, as his broker will recall the borrow to settle such trade. Following your logic, for every company that has shares lent out, analysts ought to increase the share count by the number of shares sold short. This will impact per share ratios, such as the P/E ratio and price/book ratio, making such companies look more expensive. Investment analysts do not do this, however, as they know that, in reality, companies only pay out dividends for the number of shares that have been issued. You are a sophisticated and experienced analyst and so you understand the difference between the actual situation and what you term the "effective" situation. I think you would do a service to your readers if you explain in more detail this distinction. In any event, what is more interesting to me, as a silver bull, is the identity and strategy of the SLV shorts. I guess it's hedge funds, but have an open mind that it's the bullion banks, finding a way to move some of their shorts from the COMEX. Might it be useful to develop a new tracking statistic, combining the SLV short with the COMEX short position? Assumptions would need to be made, such as that the SLV short is held by the commercials. I wonder if, overall, the bullish setup in COMEX (with commercials having a relatively small short position) is somewhat or completely negated by the rise of the SLV short position. In closing, I thank you for your tireless work on behalf of all the "little guys" out there, like me. TED TO ME (July 12)A quick question for you (based upon what you wrote previously). Has any lender, to your knowledge, ever "lost" his shares as a result of lending them to a short seller and not gotten ownership back?ThanksTedME TO TED (July 13)Ted,Yes, this does sometimes happen. A borrower of a share for some reason does not return it when demanded by the original lender/lender's broker. This leads to what is called a "forced buy-in", whereby the lender's broker goes into the market to buy a share in order to return it to the lender. The defaulting borrower is then, I believe, charged the cash equivalent of the share's value plus some penalty. Please don't quote me on these mechanics, as I'm not a stock lending expert. Now, I think I know what might be prompting your question: wouldn't there be a problem with with SLV if every shareholder (including shareholder A, who has temporarily lost ownership of his share) simultaneously wanted to turn in his shares for physical silver? (This assumes that each shareholder holds not one share, but the minimum parcel required to redeem for silver.) If new shareholder Y and old shareholders B, C, D and E all redeemed their shares for silver then SLV's vaults would be emptied. Old shareholder A would be stuck high and dry without any silver. I'm not sure how this situation would be resolved.

In my opinion, in a PM bull market, you will not only recoup the "hit" you have to pay in taxes when you "surrender" your retirement funds (surrender, to yourself -- what a bunch of obnoxious arrogant A-Holes),-- with the gains in "price" you'll see your Ag and Au realize in the coming months (or years, I say with 100% conviction) . . . but even if you "double" your money in the stock market because of QEx (whose efficacy is very much an open question), you'll still find yourself further behind in wealth preservation than if you'd bought physical from the outset.

There's a continuum of "investing" versus "insurance" on which the motivations of PM adherents can be placed, and while I do own mining stocks my "wealth" is in my . . . well, it all sank in a tragic boating accident recently. Very sad.

As Cognative Dissonance put it back when I was new to buying physical:

by Cognitive Dissonance
on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:38
#772232

Nothing specific. But consider this.

You aren't buying Silver or Gold as an investment. You're doing so to convert some of your rapidly devaluing Federal Reserve Notes into an alternative currency. It helps to see PM's like you would heating oil in the northeast. If you have a 5,000 gallon tank in the back yard and you recognize that the dollar is being slowly destroyed along with all other paper currencies, would you consider filling the tank to the brim now and then keeping it topped off as you use it?

Thus today you have converted some of your FRN's to a commodity that will always retain some value when it's possible the value of the paper currency might drop by 50% or more. Since you continue to top it off, most of the oil is not there for present consumption but simply as an alternative store of value for the future.

This idea works with anything "real" such as land, office buildings or homes/apartments. If you knew without a doubt that your dollars would be worth 50% less in 5 years, what percentage would you convert today? Since you don't know this for certain, how much should you convert as a hedge?

The key is to stop looking at it as an investment and start looking it as an alternative store of value.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment, I am certainly not "glad" to be experiencing it first hand. I believe you have not thought through thoroughly enough your happiness to "experience" this shift. It is a complete question mark as to what is really going on. Are we being systematically herded to a serfdom, one world order type of controlled society? Is this a planned event, or are all of these "perpetrators" simply that stupid as to keep licking their fingers and sticking it back into the electric socket? Has chaos and corruption at the governmental level become so malignant that it is incurable and they're all complicit, or is it more like some coup d'etat of a rogue faction or group run amok? I could actually envision a civil war in the second scenario. How far will the deciders go to keep this game going as long as possible? Lose the reserve status of the dollar, lose the power of the petro-dollar, then what? A complete middle east war to secure the oil our country needs to function? Would China, or even Russia stand by and watch us grab global resources by military force under some "manufactured" terrorist threat as an enabler? Will the government seize all gold and silver again? Is that actually part of the grand plan as well? How much bloodshed would ensue in an event of confiscation by those unwilling to comply? I wouldn't give mine up, this is for sure. If hyperinflation occurs, and I truly believe it's inevitable, would the bloated, over-indulged, soft citizenry handle food lines and rations, controlled time limits on electricity usage, limited, if any, available fuel, and all the other "inconveniences" that would fall upon their un-expecting heads? Would they finally get off their fat asses and mob up in all the major cities and elsewhere? I have no sure scenarios as to what the fallout, plan, lack of plan, residual effects, political landscape, status of rights and freedoms, and all of the other numerous questions this presents, but, NO, none of it makes me "glad". I worry for my kids in this uncertain environment...

Lots of smart people on this board and would like a few opinions regarding my company 401k retirement plan. A few weeks ago, I moved everything out of equities (mix of large cap, small cap and int'l funds) and into the money market plan. I was uneasy about the debt ceiling and QE2 ending.

Since it looks like QE3 will happen, does it make sense, at least in the short term, to move my funds back into a mix of stocks? I hate asking for investment opinions (been there, done that, learned my lesson) but what's the general thoughts regarding the short term movement of equities based on the likelihood of the Fed pumping more $$$ into the economy?

Cash it out pay the penalty and get physical. Otherwise consider dumping into commodities funds, such as Super Markets which pays you a divided. Bonds don't seem to be moving anytime soon so a Bond fund might be nice as well. Miners, well if you can stomach the volatility go for it. Commodities will be the win, corporations are already flush with cash, commodities turn to fill up.

Turd, I'm thinking that Turk, Embry and Santa just figured what you and I already knew. QE3 to infinity. Keeping that in mind, they had little to lose going up against lousy sentiment and a legion of top callers.

How did little 'ole me know? Easy, I listen to you guys. Now, unless they take down the whole ball of wax, gold's incoming tide is going to raise all boats. And Miners!

TF...I think we Turdite's kind of love it when you get all worked up and crank out a classic pissed-off & disgusted communique with spot on observations at the same time. Nice job outlaying all the critical points how this plays out. It just sucks that it has to suck this much.

Were all glad PM's are going to moonshot one of these days or nights but the reason why is the hard part to take.

Everyone remember the last scene in Planet of the Apes where Charleton Heston looks at the Statue of Liberty and cries"Why, Why? ,You've blown it all up?" That pretty sums up how I'm feeling about the state of affairs. (ok that was dramatic, I concede I'm not on a beach with a shackle on my ankle with a primitive mute woman clad only in a pelt). (darn it)

We should all be fired up/pissed off about this situation (I am. I know you are). Not only does the F'ed(up) Reserve acknowledge the "not sure when" part of this, but it's the not knowing "how" part of QE that they are talking about that is pretty disturbing to hear them say outright. We all knew QE was coming back sooner or later. It now appears it's about to be much sooner then I thought. Mid to late August is what I thought after the debt ceiling became untenable and all the other market gyrations made QE a must do at that point. It's not even 2 weeks after the reported end of QE2 and were at this point already. Not good.

I honestly believe that they don't know what to do next or "how" to proceed. The "how" part of their statement is unanswerable as it can never end and remarkably they've just acknowedged that publicly by letting it be known they have no F'n clue. First honest thing they may have said in a long time quite possibly. I know it's all pretty much orchestrated but at some point this goes off script and gets disorderly (to the upside, hopefully).

We're all on here getting prepared for a reason but it's still unsettling in some ways to expect the STHTF and see it unfolding when a great many people have no clue whatsoever.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(I bet Dr. Cornelious would have had something profound to say about primitive man and our spending problems)

Content

Features

DISCLAIMER: The charts and analysis provided here are not recommended for trading purposes. Trade at your own risk. The Turd provides knowledge not direction. Turd holds no liability for your trades and decisions but he's happy to take credit when credit is due, particularly through the "donate" button. Read more...